What We Missed: 

► The Half Shekel: In the wilderness the half-shekel was a means of atonement for having to kill other soldiers in warfare. Through the half-shekel contribution, the people were taught to put killing in perspective: Even though a soldier must kill in battle to defend his/her country, taking a human life is tragic, nonetheless.
► Objects for the Mishkan (Tabernacle): The Tabernacle ritual included incense and oil, which had important symbolic value in the ancient ceremonies.
► Betzalel and Oholiab are selected as chief artisans of the Mishkan. Their skill and piety were important characteristics and values, essential to the success and to the sanctity of the project.

What We Read: The Golden Calf

The entire Golden Calf incident reminds us modern readers that embracing a new faith was an arduous challenge. B’nai yisrael did not consider the calf as a god, but they needed some physical representation of God in the absence of Moses. Old ways and customs do not change overnight. When people become insecure, they return to behaviors which are familiar to them. Clearly, Aaron could not control the people by himself. He was pressured and assaulted by a still nascent and spiritually immature nation. Anyone who has ever led an organization appreciates the challenge Aaron experienced at this moment of national insurrection. Although we can criticize Aaron’s weakness, we need to put ourselves in his shoes to fully understand his dilemma when faced with potential insurrection.

Moses' absence further demonstrates how the people were totally dependent on him for their lives. Without him, they were not self-sufficient, socially, politically, or spiritually. The calf incident suggests that the generation of people who left Egypt could not shed its slave mentality. Only a new generation raised in freedom would be secure enough to embrace Israelite life without Moses to hold their hand.

The calf episode, however, becomes a severe test of Moses’ patience and leadership. When God informs Moses about the insurrection, it is God who becomes infuriated. Moses, in the spirit of Abraham with Sodom and Gomorrah, challenges God’s fury and disappointment. If God were to destroy b’nai yisrael, the entire Exodus would become suspect. When it came to acknowledging and respecting Israel’s new faith, optics mattered. The world would suspect that Israel’s God redeemed the Israelites not as a matter of ethical principle, but for the diabolical purpose of all destroying them at a later date. The calf was a water shed moment for Moses: Were God to strike down Israel for religious infidelity God would stand trial as a fraud! In reminding God of the Covenant, Moses never justifies the people’s behavior. Rather, he defends the continuity of Israel. Despite present setbacks, b’nai yisrael has an important future vision to fulfill. Again, as with Abraham, God backs down from the original threat (with Sodom and Gomorrah God would have backed down had there been any righteous people among them).

As Moses descends from the mountain, Joshua (who waited further down the mountain) describes to him the sound of war coming from the camp. A more experienced Moses corrects Joshua; the sound is the sound of rebellion.

When Moses finally witnesses the camp’s revelry, he abandons his previous sense of control and reason. He regards their behavior as an act of defiance, rather than celebration. Moses reacts by destroying both the calf and the new Tablets he received on Mt. Sinai. He questions Aaron (but demonstrates compassion in doing so), and then turns to the nation. He calls for unity among the Levites, and then warns the people that the unfaithful will not survive the desert. Moses returns to the mountain and – representing the people – makes an emotional plea for God’s forgiveness. He does so while appreciating God’s previous anger. He acknowledges that the people deserve punishment, but not ultimate destruction. His view stands.

We cannot, however, ignore the Torah’s recording of how thousands died as consequence of the calf incident.

Does the punishment suggest a vindictive God and an intolerant religion?

How can we condemn the cruelty and intolerance of other faiths when Israel appears no better?

The question is a fair one but must be answered within the context of the time. Today, many of us consider the pluralistic nature of Judaism as a strength. In antiquity, Israel was too young and too uncertain to tolerate conflicting voices. Compliance was a matter of national life or extinction. Even during Rabbinic times centuries later, leaders like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel took harsh measures against anyone who challenge the rigid norms he established for governance. Ultimately, Gamliel’s colleagues deposed him for such rigidity, suggesting that Judaism must allow for flexibility and change. In the Torah generation, such tolerance was not forthcoming; our contemporary standards did not exist.

Questions To Consider: What are the "golden calves" we worship in our generation?

What are the major issues you struggle with in terms of personal religious belief?

Haftarah Reading: 1 Kings 18:1-39

The Haftarah narrates the famous confrontation between Elijah and the Israelite supporters of the popular god, known as Ba'al. Elijah lived during the reign of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel, when worshipping the God of Israel was considered treasonous. Elijah risked his life several times while speaking on behalf of the traditional Israelite standards of justice. On Mt. Carmel, Elijah stood alone in confronting Ahab, Jezebel and all their supporters. By the end of his challenge to the Ba'al worshippers, the people recognized the God of Israel as their true God.

The Haftarah parallels the Torah reading of the Golden Calf, in that during Elijah's era the Israelites struggled with their beliefs. In our generation, too, people who embrace Judaism as a serious part of their lives often stand “alone” just as Elijah did when confronting the people. The challenge for us is to maintain the same courage and conviction demonstrated by Elijah.